Nathan and I are trying a new blogger blog for our discussions, which used to be buried in Xanga comments. Here it is, with its very own Prufrockian title:
question on your plate
You should subscribe to it and come poke at philosophy with us there.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Poem Intersections
I like it when poems come together (accidentally or on purpose). So I think I shall post poetry quotes that seem to intersect; perhaps it'll become a frequent feature on this blog.
The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art
Resolving the enigma of the fever chart.
- Eliot
A Wounded Deer -- leaps highest --
I've heard the Hunter tell --
Tis but the Ecstasy of death --
And then the Brake is still!
. . .
Mirth is the Mail of Anguish --
In which it Cautious Arm,
Lest anybody spy the blood
And "you're hurt" exclaim!
- Dickinson
The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art
Resolving the enigma of the fever chart.
- Eliot
A Wounded Deer -- leaps highest --
I've heard the Hunter tell --
Tis but the Ecstasy of death --
And then the Brake is still!
. . .
Mirth is the Mail of Anguish --
In which it Cautious Arm,
Lest anybody spy the blood
And "you're hurt" exclaim!
- Dickinson
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Dazzling and Tremendous
"Dazzling and tremendous how quick the sun-rise would kill me,
If I could not now and always send sun-rise out of me."
- Whitman
I love those lines very much indeed. But I think I may disagree with what Whitman is saying (if I've understood it). I don't think the sunrise would be a mortal danger if he couldn't send sunrise out of himself. Rocks or animals aren't in danger of being killed by dazzling tremendousness, but people are -- because they have the capacity to respond to dazzling tremendousness in its own terms.
Our weakness, our capacity to be injured by our surroundings, comes from a strength, our capacity to respond deeply to our surroundings.
(To go back to Whitman, though, perhaps he's saying he'd be overcome if he only responded internally and lacked the power to express his encounters -- and the context (section 25 of "Song of Myself") suggests that that might be on track.)
If I could not now and always send sun-rise out of me."
- Whitman
I love those lines very much indeed. But I think I may disagree with what Whitman is saying (if I've understood it). I don't think the sunrise would be a mortal danger if he couldn't send sunrise out of himself. Rocks or animals aren't in danger of being killed by dazzling tremendousness, but people are -- because they have the capacity to respond to dazzling tremendousness in its own terms.
Our weakness, our capacity to be injured by our surroundings, comes from a strength, our capacity to respond deeply to our surroundings.
(To go back to Whitman, though, perhaps he's saying he'd be overcome if he only responded internally and lacked the power to express his encounters -- and the context (section 25 of "Song of Myself") suggests that that might be on track.)
Saturday, December 08, 2007
God and Pain
How God could create a world knowing there would be suffering and not intervene is one of the fundamental questions theists have to confront. A pretty intellectual answer is definitely not going to make it all better, but here's something I've been thinking about that I haven't heard before.
Suppose existence itself is a positive good, and a very big one. If that were true, the suffering in the world -- even the real evil in the world -- wouldn't be able to make creation a bad deal.
We often tend to think of existence as sort of a neutral state, not really worth much unless something ostensibly good happens to it but not harmful unless something bad happens. But God creates things. (I'm working with the assumption that God is good and wise here.) God creates things that don't experience pleasure or pain, so far as we know. God creates things that will probably never touch the experience of humans. The universe is huge, maybe infinite. Creating things seems to be a positive expression of God's energy good in itself, not a good subordinate to that of generating happiness among created things. Creating is God's happiness, it's not just used as a means to human happiness.
The point of that isn't, "Suck it up, the music of the spheres doesn't care about your drama." (Though I suppose that's probably true.) God can create because creating is good and still care about the human condition. But if creating is good -- if it's just fundamentally better for things to be than for them not to be (exit Hamlet) -- then that gives a different perspective to the way we see our condition and make sense of suffering.
If existence itself is an intrinsically good thing, then it could outweigh a lot of bad things. If it's very good to be, then maybe the things we see as bad aren't bad enough to make the answer come out negative. Maybe a person could be starving and still be blessed to be at all. Saints and martyrs have believed that God and God-given existence are still richly good even in painful circumstances, and maybe that applies to the whole world even if we don't recognize it. Perhaps being, and with it the potential for infinite quality of life and fulfillment in God, itself is stronger than the evils that often seem to encumber it.
Disclaimers: The maybes and perhapses above are not rhetorical -- I'm speculating and I know it. Also, I understand if my dear readers (all 4 of you) wish to smack me for propounding such a sanguine philosophy of life at this time in the semester. ;)
Suppose existence itself is a positive good, and a very big one. If that were true, the suffering in the world -- even the real evil in the world -- wouldn't be able to make creation a bad deal.
We often tend to think of existence as sort of a neutral state, not really worth much unless something ostensibly good happens to it but not harmful unless something bad happens. But God creates things. (I'm working with the assumption that God is good and wise here.) God creates things that don't experience pleasure or pain, so far as we know. God creates things that will probably never touch the experience of humans. The universe is huge, maybe infinite. Creating things seems to be a positive expression of God's energy good in itself, not a good subordinate to that of generating happiness among created things. Creating is God's happiness, it's not just used as a means to human happiness.
The point of that isn't, "Suck it up, the music of the spheres doesn't care about your drama." (Though I suppose that's probably true.) God can create because creating is good and still care about the human condition. But if creating is good -- if it's just fundamentally better for things to be than for them not to be (exit Hamlet) -- then that gives a different perspective to the way we see our condition and make sense of suffering.
If existence itself is an intrinsically good thing, then it could outweigh a lot of bad things. If it's very good to be, then maybe the things we see as bad aren't bad enough to make the answer come out negative. Maybe a person could be starving and still be blessed to be at all. Saints and martyrs have believed that God and God-given existence are still richly good even in painful circumstances, and maybe that applies to the whole world even if we don't recognize it. Perhaps being, and with it the potential for infinite quality of life and fulfillment in God, itself is stronger than the evils that often seem to encumber it.
Disclaimers: The maybes and perhapses above are not rhetorical -- I'm speculating and I know it. Also, I understand if my dear readers (all 4 of you) wish to smack me for propounding such a sanguine philosophy of life at this time in the semester. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)